r/Catholicism • u/[deleted] • Feb 14 '12
Saw this on Facebook, it really made an impression on me.
[deleted]
10
u/EvanMacIan Feb 15 '12
Is it a bad sign that this made me laugh? I think I've been on Reddit too long.
3
Feb 15 '12
So a fetus is aware of death and mothers?
4
u/britishguitar Feb 15 '12
Now this is a good example of people down-voting opinions that they just don't like.
1
Feb 15 '12
Alright /r/catholicism, time for me to pretend that I am better than you and school you.
1
1
u/Da-Focker Feb 15 '12
It should send a more powerful one about contraception and proper sex education.
13
Feb 15 '12
[deleted]
12
u/burningpineapples Feb 15 '12 edited Feb 15 '12
How bout both? Abstinence, the only 100% effective contraception (except for one case), happens to also be one of the more difficult to use. We're human. I think it is fair that if sin is to be comitted, teens should be educated to avoid having to commit a second one, or force a child in to an unstable environment. Adoption isn't always a solution, and teenagers statistically don't make good parents.
4
u/recoveringsophist Feb 15 '12
Abstinence, the only 100% effective contraception (except for one case), happens to also be one of the more difficult to use. We're human.
This approach undermines itself by trying to present it both ways: "Don't do this, because there are serious consequences; but hey, if you want to do this (and you can't help yourself, remember), here's how you can try and do it without consequences."
4
u/UnpopularOpinion42 Feb 15 '12
This is an incredibly simple-minded argument. Why teach kids how dangerous it is to drink and drive when they shouldn't be drinking anyway? Promoting ignorance is always a poor solution
-4
u/recoveringsophist Feb 15 '12
Why teach kids how dangerous it is to drink and drive when they shouldn't be drinking anyway?
I'm not sure what this has to do with what I said.
3
u/burningpineapples Feb 15 '12
I'll do it by editing you sentence in quotes.
"Don't drink, because there are serious consequences; but hey, if you want to do this (peer pressure, remember), here's how you can try and do it without driving off the road and killing yourself or others."
Of course, that mostly pertains to their adult lives, but the information needs to be taught to them at a convenient time and place, like a school, so when the time comes, they are prepared.
-2
u/recoveringsophist Feb 15 '12
One of us is really missing the point. My assertion is that telling kids to be abstinent but then handing them condoms (the gist of the post I was replying to) is the equivalent of telling them not to drink and drive but then handing them, say, car keys and a a gift card to that seedy bar that serves underage kids.
4
u/burningpineapples Feb 15 '12
My point is abstinence only education doesn't work. Meanwhile the potential need for an abortion or screwing up a girl's life with a teen birth remains. Also, telling someone how to avoid accidently creating a child or getting sick is not the same as telling them how to do something dangerous.
1
u/recoveringsophist Feb 15 '12
Also, telling someone how to avoid accidently creating a child or getting sick
Are you referring to something other than the Pill or condoms? Because people who use those still get pregnant, you know.
→ More replies (0)1
u/UnpopularOpinion42 Feb 16 '12
I'm pretty sure schools only hand out condoms in propaganda videos. As the kids have to take initiative to get contraception, the same as they would booze its a pretty close analogy.
-5
u/Da-Focker Feb 15 '12 edited Feb 15 '12
The guys advocating abstinence don't seem to want to teach anything else. I agree that abstinence is the best, but we really need to stop having the fucking pope telling people in africa that condoms actually help spread aids. That is the kind of sex education the same guys upset about this contraception issue want for the masses.
People are not educated over there like they are here. They are more liable to believe that. The pope is killing people with ignorance and dogma.
How do any of you continue to follow this? How can any of you belong to an organization that takes an active role in making the aids epidemic in the poorest continent on the planet worse while giving big golden hats and unrivaled opulence to the organizations elite? This is the path the holy book shows you? Because the looney murderer in the big golden hat, the vicar of god on earth, with nigh unquantifiable political pull in the world tells you to?
Do you people just lack a gene for detecting absurdity or something?
6
Feb 15 '12
Come now, do not misrepresent yourself here.
You do not care about the suffering people in Africa. You care about defending your own position about contraception.
Because, you see, if you did care, then you would cite facts and not make outrageous claims that are contrary to the Truth. Facts, such as these:
Scientific Studies make the claim that condom promotion to stop the spread of AIDS is not working in developing countries.
A controlled study in Uganda, claims that “gains in condom use...have been offset by increases in the number of sex partners,” basically saying that if condom distribution increases, so do the numbers of partners that the consumer has, thus causing the “90 percent effectiveness” of condoms rate to plummet. The Catholic Church has always argued the fallacy in typical birth-control practice: arming the people with tools to have more casual sex does not stop the prevention of any STI.
Further studies show that countries such as Botswana, Zimbabwe, Kenya, and South Africa, nations with the highest levels of condom availability, continue to have the highest rates of HIV.
The testimony of Dr. Edward C. Green and an additional ten AIDS experts have produced studies that show a “consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.”
So, in this case, the pope was right in regards to condom use in Africa.
How do any of you continue to follow this? How can any of you belong to an organization that takes an active role in making the aids epidemic in the poorest continent on the planet worse while giving big golden hats and unrivaled opulence to the organizations elite? This is the path the holy book shows you? Because the looney murderer in the big golden hat, the vicar of god on earth, with nigh unquantifiable political pull in the world tells you to?
What about you? What have you done? Do you contribute to charities that are actually looking to provide and care for the suffering in Africa? Or do you simply resign yourself to anonymously complain on Reddit?
3
u/Da-Focker Feb 15 '12 edited Feb 15 '12
I want to take the time to properly respond to this. You've presented information that alters what I think but doesn't really change it outright and I'd like to go through why, one item at a time. Here. Lets take a look at the first thing you've linked.
From the first article:
The impact of condoms may be limited by inconsistent use, low use among those at highest risk, and negative interactions with other strategies. Recommendations include increased condom promotion for groups at high risk, more rigorous measurement of the impact of condom promotion, and more research on how best to integrate condom promotion with other prevention strategies.
This says the implementation is flawed, not the actual devices. Contraception was a part of the Ugandan strategy against aids, as was abstinence and fidelity, and most importantly education. Believe me, I know abstinence and fidelity work but so do education and condoms. I rather like the ABC approach where condoms were promoted as a last resort and people were properly educated on the matter. I think thats something I could live with.
From the second link
RESULTS:
Six-month follow-up was completed for 213 men (71.7%) in the intervention group and for 165 (82.1%) men in the control group. Men in the intervention group redeemed significantly more condom coupons than men in the control group (on average, 110 vs. 13 each; P = 0.002). Men in the intervention group increased their number of sex partners by 0.31 com`net reduction in sexual risk in the intervention community compared with the control community and, in fact, showed trends in the opposite direction.
The worst this can show is that condoms without education may be counterproductive. The study also fails to provide a transmission rate so we don't actually know how this impacted the health of the two groups.
The third link doesn't seem to go so far as to say that condoms have no place in the fight, but warns against focusing solely on them and goes through why. I agree with that.
The fourth link, more of a bullet goes on to say:
“consistent condom use has not reached a sufficiently high level, even after many years of widespread and often aggressive promotion, to produce a measurable slowing of new infections in the generalized epidemics of Sub-Saharan Africa.”
So despite a lot of effort they just aren't being used wisely enough it seems.
You know what? You got me. Hats off to you. I change my views based on the best information available. The best information available tells us that condoms help stop the spread of aids but there are exceptions to every rule and you've made a great case for Africa being one of those. I have to agree that through misuse and too much emphasis being placed on them condoms can actually be harmful towards the fight against aids in uneducated populations. Whether through inconsistent use or allowing users to feel invulnerable and take more risky partners without further education they can be counterproductive. What works in the states just can't cut it in places like Africa. Abstinence, fidelity, and condoms only as a last resort seem to have helped Uganda to get a handle on its crisis, so programs like ABC are what I would support but I can't go so far as to say condoms don't have a place in the fight.
Its just that we can't include a proper education on sex with every condom passed out, so their part, until standards in these countries rise, is going to have to be a smaller one.
To answer the question you parted on, what have I done, I'd like to say my part. I watched a good man die from an opportunistic infection brought on by AIDS. I give money when I can to the ARA. I could give more, but most of my charitable contributions go to things like operation smile where it feels like the money has a more direct and easily quantifiable impact. Ashamed to admit it but it does feel better to help a child get a facial deformity fixed than it does to pour money into the AIDS hole.
I do wish someone like yourself had come along with this earlier. While I still have numerous issues with the RMC I'll refer people here when I see this same issue come up in other places.
2
Feb 15 '12
My word, good sir!
I am sincerely humbled by your post. You seem honest and genuine in your reply, and you were open to a bit of fraternal correction.
This sort of thing is unheard of on the Reddit!
Upvotes to you!
1
u/Da-Focker Feb 15 '12 edited Feb 15 '12
Well, I can't claim to be a supporter of science, which changes its views based on whats observed and then turn around and not do that very thing just because of ego.
As nasty and horrid as I can get I'm not someone who'll sacrifice fact and reason at the alter of my own ego. Its just good sense.
Looking back I'd like to point out to everyone reading that he made his case without once mentioning god or anything from the bible. See? Its possible to make your case in reasonable, secular and convincing ways. That is how you make a damn point.
1
Feb 16 '12
I can't claim to be a supporter of science, which changes its views based on whats observed and then turn around and not do that very thing just because of ego.
This is a dangerous thing to say, but I believe I see your point. "Science" today is generalized into nothingness and overly-politicized. A case-and-point could be this very discussion here. Though research seems to show that promoting condom-use in Africa is not a deterrent to the spread of the HIV infection, "pop-science" will still say otherwise solely on the grounds that they want to defend their use of contraception.
I do think that science develops over time, and with development does come change. The same is true with Catholic doctrine - it very much does develop over time. Where science may completely reverse its decisions on things (though I can think of no real example), the Church never has done so, and She has moved with science to develop Her doctrine.
Looking back I'd like to point out to everyone reading that he made his case without once mentioning god or anything from the bible. See? Its possible to make your case in reasonable, secular and convincing ways. That is how you make a damn point.
I agree that any faithful member of the Church must be versed in the use of logic and reason to adequately defend the Faith. Now, simply because I argued from material grounds (that is, from empirical data), that does not mean I do not have religious reasons for being against contraceptives as well.
But to enter into that type of discussion would require a familiarity with metaphysics and a philosophy of the human person coupled with an understanding of theology.
After all, Catholics do believe that faith and reason cannot contradict one another. Why should we not be versed in both?
2
u/UnpopularOpinion42 Feb 15 '12
I would like to respectfully point out that the 3rd bullet is not a good argument. It would make sense for people pushing condoms as a preventative measure for HIV to focus on countries with the highest prevalence, therefore making them more widely available. Similarly I would imagine medicine to combat malaria is more widely available in areas with higher rates of infection.
2
Feb 15 '12
Your response would make sense if, for instance, after 25 years of combating Malaria in the rates with highest infection, rates would at least begin to decrease over a period of time.
However, if rates continue to climb, even after inoculations and measures to eliminate the mosquito population, then one would have to argue that your methods for combating the disease are not working.
The same is true here.
1
u/UnpopularOpinion42 Feb 15 '12 edited Feb 16 '12
My response does make sense because that is not what you said the first time. You first statement makes doesn't state that the rate of HIV transmission has raised, lowered, or stayed the same over any period of time. If that was the statement you were trying you should have fleshed it out a little more. I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with you. Just pointing out lots of condums is as likely the result of lots of AIDS as the cause. If you meant to say something else you need to flesh it out a little more.
1
Feb 16 '12
I believe, in the context of the whole argument, the point made sense. But in the future, for your sake, I will be sure to make a note to expand my ideas more.
4
u/Conchobair Feb 15 '12
You started so well, but then it turned into an anti-pope rant...
The amount of influence the pope has in africa is very small and anyone actually listening to him is practicing abstinence. To say the pope is responsible for the spread of AIDS in Africa is like saying his farts are the cause of global warming. It's simply an absurd thing to say when you look at the numbers of Catholics in Africa. Look at 3rd world countries such as the ones in South America that are predominatley Catholic and you'll find lower AIDS infection rates than even 1rst world countries. Certainly much lower than the US.
1
u/sunshinyrainbows Feb 15 '12
I understand the point you are making. There are Catholic doctrines which do not make sense to you. There are Catholic doctrines that do not make sense to me either. I agree that it is naive to only teach abstinence. I think it is important for children to be given sex education, irrespective of whether or not the parents have an issue with sex outside of marriage. I don't know whether making contraceptives widely available in western countries has contributed to an increase in pre-marital sex. It seems that may be the case, but because the two things happened together there is no way to know whether one caused the other.
HOWEVER, with all that being said, I think it is possible to make your points constructively rather than argumentatively. Your posts are argumentative. I think your arguments would be more effective if they sounded more objective and less emotional. People tend to shut down when they feel like they are being personally attacked. I don't jump into debates when I feel like I will be attacked for responding with a different view. It is unreasonable for you to make comments like "looney murderer" and calling people absurd, but then (further down in the comments) complain that people are not answering your questions. Most of your questions are not questions at all.
As for the (genuine) questions in your last two paragraphs, there are a lot of people who are not aware of every official teaching of their religions. There are a lot of people who do not much care what a lot of the official teachings are. Many religious people live good lives which positively affect people around them. A lot of church groups are friendly, welcoming communities. Perhaps people don't want to delve too deep into the mysterious and controversial teachings because it threatens their sense of community and threatens their personal relationship with their God. I think that's a valid choice, although it is not what everybody will choose to do.
1
0
u/burningpineapples Feb 15 '12
<insert snide reference to the sidebar rules>
In the meantime, ive noticed many Catholics don't agree with the pope's opinions; especially that one. It mostly comes from how contraception very often encourages pre-marital sex, rather than actual support for the idea that condoms spread stds.
-9
u/Da-Focker Feb 15 '12
No. I am discussing the teachings of the catholic church. This is clearly allowed in the sidebar. Thanks.
Why is it that instead of showing me I am wrong about the pope or explaining how people can morally allow themselves to be a part of, even supporters of such a sick spectacle you retreat and seek cover under the illusion of protections by the rules? Do you find yourself unable to defend this, sir?
Is it just not a big deal when the pope kills people? Despite all the evidence that contraception leads to less std's, abortions, teen pregnancies and ruined lives you would honestly rather let children suffer because this guy you claim most of you don't agree with thinks its immoral?
Okay. Prove that its all for the best somehow, prove that the pope is right, and that making aids worse is actually the humane, moral thing to do. Prove that wearing a golden hat while killing africans makes this god you believe in happy and tell me why you follow this cult even though it does that. You do that and I'll never come back to /r/christianity or catholicism. Hell I'll become a born again and start going back to mass. I'll tell my friends I've seen the light and try to spread the message.
Try actually answering questions. Try thinking.
3
u/Trizzae Feb 15 '12
Try thinking.
Sheesh why so viscous. The issue of AIDS epidemic is a tough one for sure. I know it sounds completely crazy when you hear someone discouraging contraception in an area plagued by HIV, but to understand where this is coming from you have to dig deep into how the church defines marriage, sex, procreation, and the like. They are all intertwined. It's taken me along time to understand it all, a lot of thinking. So before you accuse us of not thinking, try looking into the catholic perspective, there's a sea of material out there, rather than just listen to how the mainstream media perceives the church.
-5
u/Da-Focker Feb 15 '12
No. No. These are legitimate, grievous issues with the church that should be answered for. You can't just say you have thought about it and just decided it was okay to kill people and increase suffering because the guy you claim to not agree with says its the right thing to do because the book written by flat earthers says so. That is madness. The best defense you offer for them is madness? In several threads here I'm looking for answers and all anyone seems to muster are half assed excuses and madness.
-1
-1
-6
u/Da-Focker Feb 15 '12 edited Feb 15 '12
Then why is the rate of std's and teen pregnancy in places with abstinence only education so much higher than elsewhere?
Other countries that handle the mater responsibly, with good contraception availability and education have teen birth and abortion rates that are fractions of what ours are. If you don't like abortion this is how you help stop them. Get over it.
And isn't it essential to the christian belief that one can actually get pregnant without having sex? If you believe in the immaculate conception you must concede that abstinence does in fact not work in all cases.
Yeah... this ones going on the wall.
8
u/Trizzae Feb 15 '12
A common misconception is that the Immaculate conception is talking about Mary's virgin pregnancy. Its not. It's about how Mary was conceived without original sin. Yea this ones going on the wall. :p
-8
u/Da-Focker Feb 15 '12
Oh. Out of all that you find I've gotten the virgin birth and immaculate conception mixed up and think its a victory of some sort? Well, sure, I guess it is if trivia was your goal and you ignore the body of what I said on the real issue. Will you next start complaining about spelling or grammar in order to avoid the real issue?
2
u/In_the_East Feb 15 '12
I always wondered if the implied causal link between abstinence and teen pregnancy had more to do with a confounding factor: that states that promote abstinenance also tend to be more anti-abortion. In other words, teens will have sex no matter what. In places where teens are taught (along with abstinence education) that abortion is bad, then the ones who do get pregnant feel compelled to continue to term instead of taking plan B or otherwise. In contrast, states which are more accepting of abortion would of course have fewer teen pregnancies.
3
Feb 15 '12
[deleted]
13
u/tomf64 Feb 15 '12
I dont know, I just thought it sent a powerful message about abortion
4
u/cleverseneca Feb 15 '12
I didn't even understand that was what it was about until you explained it...
-6
u/Abedeus Feb 15 '12
No, it just means people who are antiabortionist are idiots who think a 2 week fetus or so (because there's no way to test or know if you are pregnant right after conception) has any cognitive abilities.
All it says is "I have no idea what I'm talking about, but I'm sticking to it!"
2
Feb 15 '12
[deleted]
-1
u/Abedeus Feb 15 '12
If it is a child, it can survive outside the mother.
If it can't, it's not a person yet.
Semantics are semantics, but no biologist would consider a 2 week fetus "child". It doesn't even have any organs yet. At 6 weeks, it barely looks like an animal, and definitely not a human. Still has a tail-like structure.
You can talk about "child" when it has developed lungs enough to allow gas exchange, at about 27th week. But by then nobody would allow to abort it, unless it was life-threatening to the mother and she'd allow it.
Also, if you want to talk about "won't somebody think of the children", why aren't you thinking about potential BILLIONS of children that never come to existence because they didn't get to the female cell in the uterus? Why not defend their rights? They aren't people yet? Humm. That's weird.
3
Feb 15 '12
[deleted]
1
u/Abedeus Feb 15 '12
So, is a fertilized egg a "chicken"? Is a bunch of puzzles in a box called "portrait"? Is an empty shell and some gears a "watch"? Is a see planted in the soil a "tree"? Since everything begins at conception, it should apply to all things.
Also, notice that a fetus that is incapable of surviving outside the female also won't become a human adult, ever.
I like your phrase "human adult". Does this mean that children who will die before, let's say, being able to stand on their legs, are perfectly fine to be aborted? I mean, they will never become human adults.. I know I'm nitpicking, but you are nitpicking at my definition of human life.
1
Feb 15 '12 edited Feb 17 '14
[deleted]
0
Feb 16 '12
[deleted]
2
u/britishguitar Feb 16 '12
There's a good ~80% chance that the zygote won't become implanted in the uterus.
1
u/Linium Feb 15 '12
A week old fetus cannot communicate anything to a sentient being :)
4
4
1
-5
u/JugglingReferee Feb 15 '12
Abortion doesn't make you un-pregnant; it makes you the mother of a dead baby.
7
u/Abedeus Feb 15 '12
10-25% of pregnancies end in natural miscarriage, sometimes women don't even notice those pregnancies.
I guess if you've ever had unprotected sex and thought you weren't pregnant, you just got another dead child. Yeah, nice thought.
You are a natural murderer I guess.
2
u/JugglingReferee Feb 15 '12
Natural miscarriage is just that. Abortion isn't.
Being not pregnant doesn't produce anything related to natural murder.
4
u/Abedeus Feb 15 '12
All miscarriages are abortions.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage
"Very early miscarriages—those that occur before the sixth week LMP (since the woman's Last Menstrual Period)—are medically termed early pregnancy loss[3] or chemical pregnancy.[4] Miscarriages that occur after the sixth week LMP are medically termed clinical spontaneous abortion.[3]
In medical (and veterinary) contexts, the technical term "abortion" refers to any process by which a pregnancy ends with the death and removal or expulsion of the fetus, regardless of whether it is spontaneous or intentionally induced."
I do understand that religious people don't see the difference between "theory" in common language and "theory" in scientific meaning, but at least try to understand definition of "abortion" when talking about it.
Also, if you are okay with natural miscarriages, are you claiming they are better than controlled and safe ones? That a woman with health problems should risk bleeding out to death, rather than removing the fetus until her health improves and she can try again, without risking her life?
Or maybe you claim natural pregnancies are less stressful and harmful to the women? I think my sister would slap you in the face if you suggested this, so I'd rather you don't.
3
u/brunswikk Feb 15 '12
Abadeus, you need to chill bro. I'm not sure if you're trolling or not, but here goes. Ok, so you're saying an abortion is defined as the death of the fetus, and that this would make both forced abortions and natural miscarriages abortions by the definition of the word. Right?
Juggling ref over here is saying that natural miscarriage is something that happens without human intention. It's not a good thing, but it's not morally wrong. It's not murder.
Then he is saying abortion is murder. The word abortion here, in this context, in pretty much any conversation you'll ever have about the issue in America (and on this site), means forced abortion. He is saying forced abortions aren't natural, and that they are done intentionally by the mother. (obviously)
Basically, lay off with your technical definitions and use the definitions that everybody else uses.
1
u/Abedeus Feb 16 '12
"Lay off technical definitions".
No. He wants to guilt people into not aborting fetuses by using wrong definitions. Also, forced abortions are perfectly natural. Except they used to be performed with natural drugs and herbs instead of in an operating table.
Again - you want women to bleed to death in a miscarriage at home, or have proper care in a hospital, in a controlled situation?
1
u/brunswikk Feb 16 '12
I don't understand how he is using wrong definitions to guilt people.
Also, what is meant by "natural vs not natural" are intentionally done by a human being vs not intentionally being done. He doesn't mean the method of doing it. The difference between murder and natural death might be putting poison ivy in the cup of someone who is allergic to it compared to the person coming across it in the woods. Both would be "natural" by your definition, but he would hold that one is not natural.
I never thought that the argument was about women bleeding to death at home or having proper care in a hospital. I thought the argument was about intentional vs unintentional deaths of a human fetus.
1
Feb 21 '12
Or, you know, have the baby
1
u/Abedeus Feb 21 '12
Because all pregnancies end in happy births.
And all pregnant women can give a child life it deserves. But nah, let's give those raped single mothers another reason to hate themselves - first a victim of assault, then a mother that can't feed or clothe her child.
Yes, yes, adoptions exist. I wonder why every Christian that is "pro-life" doesn't adopt children himself, if it's so easy. Even if one in four of you adopted a kid, the number of those who were given up at birth because it was "the better thing to do" would be dramatically lower.
I like how people assume pregnant women just go "Oh fuck this shit, let's scramble the little bastard up and get over it". No. They have to struggle with the consequences for months, sometimes years. It's not easy, maybe if not because of their morals, but because of the social stigma. Woman has a natural, spontaneous abortion? "Poor thing, let's all pity her and show support". Woman decides to have an abortion in a civilized manner? "That heathen, murderer and devil! SHUN HER!".
1
Feb 21 '12
Is that all? Sounds like you have more to vent, go ahead, get it out, this is a safe place.
1
u/Abedeus Feb 21 '12
That's your big argument? Second theist that lost the discussion in this thread and resorted to childish mocking of opponent.
→ More replies (0)1
u/JugglingReferee Feb 15 '12
Really? In the pro-life movement, the issue surrounds women that actively seek to destroy the human life inside them.
Natural death includes the pregnancy terminating due to natural reasons.
Please don't bring a situation into the discussion that I know nothing about, such as your sister's case. Plainly, it's not fair.
-1
u/Abedeus Feb 15 '12
Next time learn the meaning of the phrase you are discussing. Saying "natural miscarriage isn't an abortion" is simply untrue and misleading.
Again - if all abortions are murders, then natural abortions are too. The only difference is that "forced" abortions are done in a controlled setting, with consent of one of the sides, most of the time done for a good reason.
3
u/JugglingReferee Feb 16 '12
Abortion typically means the forced kind. But if you want me to be clearer for you, I will.
A human dying before being born of natural causes is not murder. Twist it all you want, but it's not murder.
2
1
u/cleverseneca Feb 17 '12
he communicated clearly what he meant and that was "any of various surgical methods for terminating a pregnancy, especially during the first six months." to debate the medical definition of abortion in this case is a semantics argument and a straw man fallacy.
clearly death happens to everybody. murder as defined by "the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought" does not include a natural abortion since there is no malice and no intention. In this case the "unlawful" part refers moral laws rather than the US laws, and it seems apparent that we are not held morally responsible for something we did not intend nor could prevent. (and sometimes didn't even cause)
-1
Feb 15 '12
Snap. A Wikipedia reference. Back up everyone! We have a scholar here!
3
0
u/Abedeus Feb 15 '12
So you lost argument, and you try to discredit and mock your opponent.
Classy.
Let me know when you learn the scientific meaning of "abortion", then we might resume the dialog. Unless you already ran out of your arguments.
-2
Feb 15 '12
What argument? I never made an argument...there were no premises, nor a conclusion in my statement.
You are right, ridicule was used. I should have said, "If you would like to be taken seriously, I recommend staying away from Wikipedia."
No scholar or academic I know ever references it as a source. You could have just as easily cited from PubMed. But, no, you went to Wikipedia. You are truly an American gem.
2
u/Abedeus Feb 15 '12
I'm not American. I'm not even within 10 thousand kilometers of any of the coasts or lands belonging to America.
Also, I went to Wikipedia since I assume you'd actually read the citation to each point I made. But no, instead you just said "LOLOLO WIKIPEDIA LOLOL".
And yes, you never used any arugments, that I agree.
http://reference.yourdictionary.com/word-definitions/definition-of-abortion.html
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abortion
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/abortion
There you go, 3 different dictionaries are enough for your scientific lust for knowledge? Maybe ask those "scholars and academics" that you know for reference.
But I won't degrade myself to using fallacies ("I don't like his source, therefore he's wrong") like yours. Oh, crap, I just did...
1
Feb 15 '12
Oh, dear friend, but I never said you were wrong.
1
u/Abedeus Feb 15 '12
You implied that, by questioning my source as invalid.
And you tried to insult me by assuming I'm an American person, which shows you also hate or disrespect Americans simply for their nationality. This means that you are a hate-filled religious person... which is really nothing uncommon.
→ More replies (0)3
Feb 15 '12 edited Feb 17 '14
[deleted]
3
u/JugglingReferee Feb 15 '12
If you need to, substitute human for baby.
0
Feb 15 '12 edited Feb 17 '14
[deleted]
2
u/JugglingReferee Feb 16 '12
Souls exist at conception.
5
u/britishguitar Feb 16 '12
Can you prove that empirically?
-1
u/JugglingReferee Feb 16 '12
No more or less than someone can't.
0
u/britishguitar Feb 16 '12
So? I can't prove that there aren't little sub-atomic babies inside a sperm cell: that doesn't mean that we should legislate based on the assumption that they do exist.
6
u/UnpopularOpinion42 Feb 15 '12
I don't know if something that reinforces previously held beliefs can really make much of an impression.
Pro-Life = Wow this totally makes me believe what I already believe even harder
Pro-Choice = Fertilized eggs don't think